NATIVE AMERICANS DESERVE RESPECT
http://nativenewsonline.net/opinion/native-americans-deserve-respect/
http://nativenewsonline.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Ida-One-Star-Marsshall-600x400.jpg 600w, http://nativenewsonline.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Ida-One-Star-Marsshall.jpg 960w" alt="Ida One Star Marshall stands at her home on the Rosebud Indian Reservation in South Dakota last year. Photo Credit: Brian Lehman for Washington Post via Getty Images " width="600" height="400"> Ida One Star Marshall stands at her home on the Rosebud Indian Reservation in South Dakota last year.
Photo Credit: Brian Lehman for Washington Post via Getty Images
GUEST COMMENTARY
Editor’s Note: This commentary was first published by the Boston Globe. Used with permission. All rights apply.
Eliminating epithets doesn’t end larger problem facing Native Americans
When the Washington Redskins began their season Sunday, their name was likely to attract as much attention as their on-field performance. After a year in which prominent sportswriters stopped using the nickname, the US Patent Office canceled the team’s trademark, and President Obama suggested he favors a new name, it’s clear that the Redskins cannot simply wait out the latest round of criticism.
This is good news. There is no place in America for epithets like “redskin” or caricatures like the Cleveland Indians’ Chief Wahoo.
But it would be wrong to presume that eliminating offensive names and mascots from sports would end the larger problem that gave rise to them in the first place: Americans’ indifference to and ignorance of Native Americans. Most Americans imagine Indians as belonging to the nation’s past, but, at 6 million strong, they are a vibrant part of its present, deserving of the same respect due to all Americans.
Banning offensive mascots is certainly a step toward extending that respect, but there are more substantive actions our leaders can take that would help accomplish the dual purpose of elevating Native Americans’ presence in our national life and easing the challenges they have confronted for too long.
Not all Native Americans face those challenges, but they are real, particularly for the nearly 3 million who live on reservations. By many measures of social well-being, Native Americans trail the rest of the nation. According to the most recent data, the poverty rate among American Indians and Alaskan Natives is 28 percent, compared to about 15 percent for the rest of the nation. Native Americans graduate high school at a rate 14 percent lower than the general population, and Native American youths are twice as likely to die before age 24 as any other race.
http://nativenewsonline.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Kerry-Kennedy-Head-Shot-1-223x223.jpg 223w" alt="Kerry Kennedy" width="150" height="150"> Kerry Kennedy
These problems have not received sufficient national attention. Few Americans live near reservations, making it easy for our representatives to ignore the pain that affects so many Native American communities. Last year, for instance, when Congress failed to pass legislation to avert the budget sequester, lawmakers scrambled to exempt programs like Medicaid and food stamps. But their eleventh-hour effort excluded many programs crucial to American Indians.
OUR NATIONAL INDIFFERENCE TO NATIVE AMERICANS IS UNACCEPTABLE, AND IT HAS LASTED FOR TOO LONG. THROUGHOUT HIS CAREER, MY FATHER, ROBERT KENNEDY, WAS DEEPLY INTERESTED IN THE RIGHTS OF NATIVE AMERICANS. SPEAKING IN 1963, HE SAID, “THAT THESE CONDITIONS CAN BE ALLOWED TO PREVAIL AMONG A PEOPLE UNIQUELY ENTITLED TO CALL THEMSELVES THE FIRST AMERICANS . . . IS NOTHING LESS THAN A NATIONAL DISGRACE.” MORE THAN HALF A CENTURY LATER, WE HAVE MADE LITTLE PROGRESS.
One solution that many Native American leaders endorse is giving tribes more sovereignty over their land and peoples. The United States recognizes most tribes as so-called “sovereign dependent” nations — autonomous, but with many strings attached. President Obama has been more engaged on this issue than his recent predecessors, restoring land to tribes and giving them broader powers to prosecute crimes in Indian country. These are encouraging developments, but Native Americans deserve an even larger role in governing their land.
In addition to recognizing Native Americans’ authority over their own territories, the United States should encourage the preservation and fostering of tribal cultures. Not only are Native American arts and languages a crucial (if overlooked) part of America’s broader cultural mosaic, but they are also a powerful tool for change — teaching young Native Americans about their rich heritage has been shown to improve their self-esteem and academic performance. By contrast, several studies have found that racist nicknames, which flatten that richness into a crude stereotype, harm their self-esteem.
Banning offensive mascots would be a powerful gesture, a signal to Native Americans that as a nation, we regard them as more than symbols.
But recognizing their authority over their own land and working with them to preserve their culture would be an even more significant step: a demonstration that we regard them not only as the first Americans, but as fellow Americans.
Kerry Kennedy is president of the Robert F. Kennedy Center for Justice and Human Rights and a member of the Council of Advisors to the Association on American Indian Affairs.
Tags
Who is online
79 visitors
"recognizing their authority over their own land and working with them to preserve their culture would be an even more significant step: a demonstration that we regard them not only as the first Americans, but as fellow Americans.
Why is that so hard to do?????
"In addition to recognizing Native Americans’ authority over their own territories, the United States should encourage the preservation and fostering of tribal cultures. Not only are Native American arts and languages a crucial (if overlooked) part of America’s broader cultural mosaic, but they are also a powerful tool for change — teaching young Native Americans about their rich heritage has been shown to improve their self-esteem and academic performance."
As only members, elders, warriors and leaders can teach - self-esteem.
Why is that so hard to do?????
And not just recognize them as the first Americans and American citizens, but to respect their culture as the first Americans by not naming things like teams after them that the find offensive. Yes it can be difficult and can even descend into ridiculous political correctness trying to decide what is or is not offensive. However there are some that there can be no question as to their offensiveness, such as calling the Washington team Redskins. We can argue about other offenses once we get rid of the ones that are obviously, undeniably offensive first.
I don't support any "banning" of offensive mascots or names. Freedom of expression is too important. I would support voluntary changes or boycotts.
Discrimination is discrimination regardless of the ethnicity. Tell me of another ethnicity who is "honored" so much as the Native Americans. And, those "honors" are racial epitaphs which is discrimination - under the law.
I don't dispute that NAs face discrimination. That is and should be illegal. However I am loathe to ban anything based on offensivness.
But, then again, how do you define "offensiveness"? How far can one go before it is inappropriate? Is it "wrong" then?
The inability to objectively define offensivness is the exact reason it cannot be banned.
I have no problem defining offensiveness. The term R*dskin is very offensive and a racial slur. Yet it is the name of a NFL team and has, and is used on a regular basis to degrade Indians.
Here are a few more, squaw, timber nigger, both used on a regular basis, except to our faces.
SCOTUS disagrees with you. Offensivness is subjective by definition.
How many American Indians are season ticket holders to Redskins games, or buy Redskins paraphernalia such as jerseys and souvenirs ? Not many, we can safely say for demographic reasons if no other.
So the Indians themselves don't have the economic juice to topple the nickname by themselves. the owner of the team Snyder hasn't suffered yet because no effective boycott has come.
Should we blame this on the "white" fans ? Probably. The offensiveness effects someone else, people who are generally out of sight out of mind to them, so the urgency is non-existent to the white fans. That is sort of a low grade racism in itself.
It'll get done sooner or later though.
Pj, there has and is a movement to get rid of the Cleveland Indians name and logo. Colleges and high schools through out the U.S. have been dropping Indian mascots and names for years.
The ridiculous caricature of Chief Wahoo is one part of the problem. When those that say that the caricature of Chief Wahoo is worse than the R*dskin mascot, they are totally missing the point. The term ''R*dskin'' has a horrific meaning. It is the scalp of an Indian man, women or child that was ripped from their head for the bounty that was placed on Indians by the U.S. Government, state governments etc.
It was easier to bring in the scalp of a 5 year old child than it was to bring in the whole body.
BTW, the largest debt the state of California had in the 1850/60's was the bounty money owed to ''Indian Killers''...
The name "Washington Redskins" glorifies actual butchery of native Americans in our past. The offensiveness is indisputable. It would be like naming a football team that glorifies the Holocaust. How The Washington Gestapo?
Given the controversy, it is disputable a priori.
Thank you so much for explaining it to me. Now I know how to respond when this issue comes up.
Cernekov, you can test SCOTUS decision by calling the first Indian you see a Redskin, or the first black a nigger. We can go right down the line, there are offensive names for most groups be they white, black, yellow or red.
I subjectively find those terms offensive. They are not illegal however. If your boss uses such a term, you have a legitimate case. Otherwise, the Federal government does not exist to protect your feelings.
Cerenkov, I didn't say that they were illegal, but that they are offensive.
Your the one that brought up SCOTUS and the federal government.
I rely on people respecting others, no matter their color. By using those terms they have deemed themselves bigoted/racists.
My point is that being offensive is not illegal nor will it ever be. So you cannot "ban" terms. The only recourse is legal civilian actions such as boycotts.
Kavika - can I ask your opinion on something since you brought up the NFL team? I'm curious why there doesn't seem to be much outcry from the Native American community against other sports teams. For example, the Atlanta Braves, Cleveland Indians to name a few. Then you have the colleges and High schools that also have Native American references. Why the focus only on Washington? In conversation with others about this issue they've brought up the fact that the Cleveland Indians representation of an Indian is far more disparaging that the Washington's team which represent the American Indian as regal and proud.
Throughout the civil rights period and beyond, Indians have been trying to gain notice and respect. It's about time that happened. It's about time that Indians rights are taken seriously, and not given as token acts. It's been way too long a wait, to get just a little respect. Because no matter how you address this, it all comes down to respect, and from that honoring the treaties that our government made.
Similar story - was attending an AF Environmental Symposium session hosted by the AF's attorney staff in D.C.
During the presentation, the instructor said "Let's put on our war paint and war bonnets, get them bows and arrows loaded and get on our spirit horses . . . . . ." Nothing in the presentation dealt with Native Americans nor any other ethnicity. I wrote on a comment card that I found that to be way out-of-bounds. The instructor was reading the comment cards and asked who had written that note. I replied I did and he asked wasn't correct with what was said. THIS IS A FRIGGIN' ATTORNEY. I asked him what his message to the session's members was regarding Native Americans - Yup - deer-in-the-headlights look. His boss pulled him off to the side and made an apology to the attendees.
Found out later that the attorney had been put in remedial culture/race/ethical training at Maxwell AFB.
Used to work with the Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute (DEOMI) and would be a guest speaker for the Native American portion of their "education". There was minimal preparation/input to the NA section as compared to the other training dealing with other ethnicities - specifically the blacks and hispanics.
Very uneven playing tables.